On April 11, 2019, the Defendant submitted a false lien report to the Jung-gu District Court of the Republic of Korea in order to receive the construction cost for the above land and buildings from C, a successful bidder for the said land and buildings, as if there was a lien for the said land and buildings, in order to receive the construction cost for the said land and buildings, the Defendant was aware that the Defendant did not have a lien for the above land and buildings in the Goyang-dong District Court of the Republic of Korea-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the fairness of auction by fraudulent means.

2. According to the records, the fact that C acquired ownership by fully paying the sale price on June 13, 2019, upon receipt of the order to permit the sale on May 29, 2019 with respect to the auction procedure for the fixed real estate D (hereinafter “the auction procedure in this case”) with respect to Goyang-dong District District Court Goyang-gu B forest No. 582m2 and the detached housing on its ground in Goyang-gu, Manyang-si, Manyang-si, and Yangyang-si, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of lien against C around June 26, 2019, jointly with E who possessed the said land together, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant filed a lien registration statement on April 11, 2019, while the auction procedure in this case was in progress, as described in this part of the facts charged.

(A) On April 11, 2019, the Defendant was indicted on the following grounds: (a) around April 11, 2019, the Defendant reported a lien to a voluntary auction procedure for forest land and 582 square meters and the detached houses on the said ground (Seoul District Court Goyang support G); and (b) the details of the report of lien attached to the evidence record (Evidence 66 pages) pertaining to F forest and buildings, not B forest and buildings. Therefore, the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, the Defendant was acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the proviso of Article 58 of the Criminal